Research on populism traced back the rise of populist attitude to political, economic, and cultural factors. The present research aims to investigate whether system justification, reflecting a system-supporting motivation to bolster societal stability, may be a relevant predictor of populist attitude. We propose that engaging in system justification may inhibit people to adopt populist attitude. This is because system justification motivates people to see existing societal structures as fair and to preserve their stability, which is not sitting well with populism¿shostile view ofsocietal arrangements, sentiment of discontent toward institutions, and demands for structural societal changes. Six studies, involving different methodological approaches (cross-sectional design,experimental design), statistical analyses (multigroup path analysis,multilevel mediation analysis,network analysis), and countries, will examinethe association between system justification and populist attitude as well as sociopolitical consequences (anti-immigration attitudes, system-supporting collective action, conspiracy beliefs, voting intentions) of such association. Specifically, we would expect that: (1) system justification is negatively related to populist attitude; (2) system justification is negatively related to trust in government; (3) trust in government is negatively related to populist attitude; (4) populist attitude is positively related to various sociopolitical consequences; (5) trust in government is positively related to sociopolitical consequences;(6) system justification is positively related to sociopolitical consequences; (7) the (positive) relations between system justification and sociopolitical consequences are mediated through (lower) trust in government and ¿ importantly ¿(lower) populist attitude. This research contributes to and moves beyond prior models and findings on system justification and populism, identifying thus promising avenues for future research.
This research represents a potentially significant progress in populism-related research by providing an in-depth understanding of what may inhibit the raise of populist attitudes, and shedding light on system justification motivation as a relevant individual-level inhibiting factor. Many empirical studies have highlighted that the main agenda of populists is anti-elitism (Hawkins, 2010; Mudde, 2004). The literature offers a wide range of explanations for the increase in popular supply and demand for populist parties. Several works documented that new populist parties emerge due to a sense of discontent capable of favoring the development of populist attitudes of voters (Akkerman et al., 2014; Hauwaert& Kessel, 2018; Hawkins et al., 2012). Because populist parties are anti-elitist, literature on determinants of populist voting focused specifically on the rejection attitudes of the political system, or the ¿protest attitudes¿, that lead voters to support populist parties. The evidence for the importance of protest as a motivator is mixed, partly due to the inconsistent definition of the concept of protest voting in early works on the populist right-wing (Aron &Superti, 2021). Populist parties mobilize against the political establishment and feed a sense of discontent toward the entire political system. Previous studies have explored whether feelings of discontent and protest can predict populist voting (Belanger &Aarts, 2006; Rooduijn et al., 2016; Van der Brug&Fennema, 2003). Recently, Aron and Superti (2021) clarified the relationship between protest and the emergence and success of populist parties. Their research showed that the tendency to act on feelings of discontent through electoral protest can predict the emergence and electoral success of populist parties. The authors showed this relationship on the case of the Five Star Movement in Italy, and on a transnational level.
Although previous research has provided evidence regarding the relationship between malcontent and protest of the electorate as a vehicle for the adoption of populist attitudes, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence on individual-level determinants of such discontent and hence of the raise of populist attitudes. The current research fills this gap by proposing that system justification may have (inhibitory) implications for the raise of populist attitude.
Second, this research contributes to system justification literature by providing evidence for the potential beneficial effects of system justification. There is scientific consensus that system justification motivation is a powerful tool for perpetuating social disparities and legitimating inequality among social groups (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Given their tendency to perceive outcomes as deserved, people high in system justification are less likely to support the redistribution of social resources (Jost, 2015; Wakslak et al., 2007) and pro-environmental policies (Greenhill et al., 2014). Previous research demonstrated that engaging in system justification undermines societal change in the context of racial inequality (Fields, 1990; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), gender inequality (Brown &Diekman; 2013; Jackman, 1994), and economic inequality (Hochschild, 1981; Kluegel& Smith, 1986). Conversely, system justification motivates collective action aimed at defending societal stability (i.e., system-supporting collective action; Osborne et al., 2019). In line with past findings, we predict that system justification would be directly and positivelyassociated with sociopolitical consequences (i.e., anti-immigration attitudes, system-supporting collective action, conspiracy beliefs, voting intentions). Yet more importantly, we also predict that such association between system justification and sociopolitical consequences would become negative when mediated by populist attitude. In other words, system justification would be expected to reduce populist attitudes. In turn, lower populist attitude would negatively affect sociopolitical consequences. This suggests the indirect benefits of system justification for progressive sociopolitical consequences. This also indicates that populist attitudes may be a suppressor variable within our proposed mediation model (see Tzelgov&Henik, 1991).
Finally, Studies 5 and 6 represent a further novelty in the investigation of the antecedents and consequences of populism. By performing a multilevel analysis, Study 5 offers the opportunity of exploring whether the association between system justification, trust in government, and populist voting is consistent across 27 European countries.By performing a network analysis, Study 6offers the opportunity of exploring which of the fourpopulist attitude¿s dimensions (i.e., anti-elitism, popular sovereignty, people homogeneity, and Manichaean outlook)mostly interacts with system justification.